>>That's precisely my point. HTML is fine, and should probably stick
>>around for some time to come, but "minimal+" SGML is more important,
>>and a (backwardly compatible) superset in terms of functionality.
>
>So that's what the SGML ERB is for. How does this relate to
>discussions of HTML and HTML CLASSes?
There are 3 things:
1) We have to be wary of starting down the CLASS path, because of
the momentum that will be generated (that might adversely affect
the deployment of sounder solutions)
2) With the level of sophistication involved in properly supporting
CLASS, it is probably advisable to spend the effort on a more
scaleable solution (in other words, we should start hammering out
an application profile of SGML for delivery on the WWW, ASAP).
3) Arguments that CLASS is easier to support/build software for are
bogus.